1956 Capital Airlines Flight 77 UFO

[Hawken]

I've posted this link in a forum about the 1986 JAL 1628 incident but thought if some members missed it

they can take a look. I find it very interesting that the Captain of the flight (WJ Hull) was a very skeptical

individual about UFO's and even denounced them by writing an article in an aviation magazine 3 years

before his encounter. Here's the link. http://www.nicap.org...kson_report.htm

[Merc14]

Interesting story but don't know what to make of it. This is what gets me thinking aircraft:

Imagine our consternation when this brilliant light did not burn out, but abruptly halted directly in front of us. It was an intense blue-white light, approximately 7 or 6 times as bright as Venus when this planet is at its brightest magnitude. Pete shouted "

What the hell is it, a jet?" His first thought, of course, was that the object was a diving jet fighter which had turned sharply away from us

and in departing, was giving us a view right up its glowing tailpipe. Instantly I knew this could not possibly be an airplane. I have seen the glow of too many jet pipes at night not to recognize one when I see it. It was not the right color; it did not diminish in size, as a departing jet fighter's exhaust should have; and it remained motionless directly ahead of us, how far I cannot say, but it must have been quite a few miles.

Now the pilot may have been used to seeing jet exhaust at night but had he ever seen a jet exhaust with the afterburner operating? Probably not as the F9F was just being deployed at that time and was one of the first US fighters with an afterburner. Could a fighter with afterburner lit be what the aircrew saw? The copilot initially thought the object was a fighter so the flight path must've been similar to a fighter but possibly the burner plume confused him as it would be markedly different than a normal turbojet exhaust. Note that the USAF base never replied so we have no idea if there was tacair operations that night.

Not saying a fighter with the burner lit was what they saw but it does fit the bill. High performance, oddly lighted object, performed more radical maneuvers (besides going faster, burners allow you to do more radical high G maneuvers), ended after two minutes (burners suck down a lot of gas. a Tomcat at burner would sip 2000 lbs of fuel a minute and it only held 16,200 lbs total w/out external tanks).

[skyeagle409]

I've posted this link in a forum about the 1986 JAL 1628 incident but thought if some members missed it

they can take a look. I find it very interesting that the Captain of the flight (WJ Hull) was a very skeptical

individual about UFO's and even denounced them by writing an article in an aviation magazine 3 years

before his encounter. Here's the link. http://www.nicap.org...kson_report.htm

Interesting case. I noticed the color of blue-white, which is one of the colors reported over Washington D.C. in 1952 and the color of the UFO exactly 50 years to the month later over Washington D.C.

July 1952 - Washington, D.C., Area Radar-Visual Sightings

AF Int - Air Force Intelligence Report, most obtained by Citizens Against UFO Secrecy via the Freedom of Information Act, declassified Jan. 1985.

July 13: 0400 EDT.

National Airlines plane en route to National Airport, about 60 mi. SW of the city observed a

blue- white

ball of light hovering to the west. Object then "came up to 11,000 ft. [and] then maintained a parallel course, on the same level, at the same speed, until the aircraft pilot turned on all lights. Object then departed from the vicinity at an estimated 1000 m.p.h. Weather was excellent for observation." The crew said the object "took off up and away." No other air traffic was reported in the area at the time. (

AF Int

.)

http://www.project1947.com/fig/1952d.htm

And, another aerial encounter involving a blue-white light on August 12, 1953 near r Rapid City, South Dakota.

The Ellsworth AFB Case (RV)

A bright blue-white light was observed by a spotter for the Ground Observer Corps and was detected by Air Defense Command radar and by ground Air Force personnel, all of whom were soon in contact with one another so there was no doubt that all were tracking the same object. An F-84 interceptor was guided to the light by the radar operator.

The pilot spotted the light and attempted to close in repeatedly, but whenever he got within 3 miles of the light, it increased its speed and pulled away. The F-84 followed the light 120 miles north and, running low on fuel, had to return to base. At this point, both the light and the F-84 had moved off the radarscope. Soon the radar detected the F-84 returning to base, and in a few minutes, it detected the light following 10-15 miles behind.

A second F-84 was scrambled, and had the same experience of making visual contact but not being able to approach closer than 3 miles to the light. At one point, this pilot turned on his radar-ranging gun sight and a red light blinked on, indicating a solid object was in front of him.

http://www.nicap.org/reports/530805ellsworth_ruppelt.htm

http://www.ufoscience.org/waldorf.html

What the Capital Airlines pilots saw was definitely not the afterburner of another jet.

[Hawken]

When they first saw it they thought it was a meteor but it stop in front of their path. Hull was going to asked the passengers

to have a look see but they wouldn't be able to see it from that position.

[psyche101]

Interesting story but don't know what to make of it. This is what gets me thinking aircraft:

Imagine our consternation when this brilliant light did not burn out, but abruptly halted directly in front of us. It was an intense blue-white light, approximately 7 or 6 times as bright as Venus when this planet is at its brightest magnitude. Pete shouted "

What the hell is it, a jet?" His first thought, of course, was that the object was a diving jet fighter which had turned sharply away from us

and in departing, was giving us a view right up its glowing tailpipe. Instantly I knew this could not possibly be an airplane. I have seen the glow of too many jet pipes at night not to recognize one when I see it. It was not the right color; it did not diminish in size, as a departing jet fighter's exhaust should have; and it remained motionless directly ahead of us, how far I cannot say, but it must have been quite a few miles.

Now the pilot may have been used to seeing jet exhaust at night but had he ever seen a jet exhaust with the afterburner operating? Probably not as the F9F was just being deployed at that time and was one of the first US fighters with an afterburner. Could a fighter with afterburner lit be what the aircrew saw? The copilot initially thought the object was a fighter so the flight path must've been similar to a fighter but possibly the burner plume confused him as it would be markedly different than a normal turbojet exhaust. Note that the USAF base never replied so we have no idea if there was tacair operations that night.

Not saying a fighter with the burner lit was what they saw but it does fit the bill. High performance, oddly lighted object, performed more radical maneuvers (besides going faster, burners allow you to do more radical high G maneuvers), ended after two minutes (burners suck down a lot of gas. a Tomcat at burner would sip 2000 lbs of fuel a minute and it only held 16,200 lbs total w/out external tanks).

Hi Merc

Good call mate. First thing I thought though was it sounds a great deal like foo Fighters that were reported in WWII.

• Ball shape
  
• small
  
• blue white (Foo fighters were reported as red, orange, blue and white)
  
• toyed with the plane (claims of intelligent control)
  
• vanishing (swallowed up by the night)
  

At one tenth the size of the moon, it does not sound like a craft, unless marmosets have UFO's.

And if they do, I want to see that!

Edited May 6, 2015 by psyche101

[skyeagle409]

When they first saw it they thought it was a meteor but it stop in front of their path. Hull was going to asked the passengers

to have a look see but they wouldn't be able to see it from that position.

I might add that meteor sightings are of short duration and meteors do not play the cat-and-mouse games with aircraft that UFOs are known to do.

[Merc14]

Hi Merc

Good call mate. First thing I thought though was it sounds a great deal like foo Fighters that were reported in WWII.

• Ball shape
  
• small
  
• blue white (Foo fighters were reported as red, orange, blue and white)
  
• toyed with the plane (claims of intelligent control)
  
• vanishing (swallowed up by the night)
  

At one tenth the size of the moon, it does not sound like a craft, unless marmosets have UFO's.

And if they do, I want to see that!

I don't think this thing ever got close to the airliner. Foo fighters have always intrigued me because they have never been explained, as far as I know. Maybe we should start a thread on them and see what the forum thinks as I don't wan to hijack Hawkin's thread.

[skyeagle409]

I don't think this thing ever got close to the airliner. Foo fighters have always intrigued me because they have never been explained, as far as I know. Maybe we should start a thread on them and see what the forum thinks as I don't wan to hijack Hawkin's thread.

I wanted to add that the Foo Fighters were not only seen over Europe, but in the Pacific region as well.

[Merc14]

I wanted to add that the Foo Fighters were not only seen over Europe, but in the Pacific region as well.

Yes, I know and never seen since which begs the question, what were these guys seeing, on both sides?

Edited May 7, 2015 by Merc14

[psyche101]

I don't think this thing ever got close to the airliner. Foo fighters have always intrigued me because they have never been explained, as far as I know. Maybe we should start a thread on them and see what the forum thinks as I don't wan to hijack Hawkin's thread.

What distance do you think it might have been? When they say things like "it stopped directly in front of us" and refer to looking for a glowing tailpipe that seems in the immediate vicinity??

I do not find Foo Fighters altogether mystifying, from all reports I feel it is obvious that they have to be an electromagnetic phenomena, just another to catalogue, which Hessdalen I feel indicates might be an extensive taxonomy.

[psyche101]

I might add that meteor sightings are of short duration and meteors do not play the cat-and-mouse games with aircraft that UFOs are known to do.

I do not think this was a meteor, even though meteors can change direction as you should well know.

It very much sounds like arial plasma.

[skyeagle409]

I do not think this was a meteor, even though meteors can change direction as you should well know.

It very much sounds like arial plasma.

Nope, not even plasma.

[Merc14]

What distance do you think it might have been? When they say things like "it stopped directly in front of us" and refer to looking for a glowing tailpipe that seems in the immediate vicinity??

All I know is the one NICAP (yes, Iknow) report that was linked and they said they never got close to the object

it did not diminish in size, as a departing jet fighter's exhaust should have; and it remained motionless directly ahead of us, how far I cannot say, but

it must have been quite a few miles.

Note their statements about distance and I have seen burner plumes from a distance while airborne and they are completely different than anything else.

I do not find Foo Fighters altogether mystifying, from all reports I feel it is obvious that they have to be an electromagnetic phenomena, just another to catalogue, which Hessdalen I feel indicates might be an extensive taxonomy.

That is my first thought but why have they not been seen since? WWII saw piston engines fly at altitudes never dreamed of before but post war they were replaced by turboprops and turbojets fairly quickly so maybe something in that mix caused the EM disturbance that a jet engine does not? A short time span in history where high altitude, piston driven engines generated some weird effect? Both sides reported it as a new weapon so no secret Nazi saucer thingie.

I guess some research into the early "50s when B-29s were still flying at altitude would be worthwhile. Did they see these balls of light while cruising at altitude? Honestly, I am not tuned in enough to understand it but if aircraft were causing this anomaly in the early 40's then they should still be causing it now and in a couple thousand hours of flight time I never saw a "foo fighter".

Edited May 7, 2015 by Merc14

[psyche101]

All I know is the one NICAP (yes, Iknow) report that was linked and they said they never got close to the object

it did not diminish in size, as a departing jet fighter's exhaust should have; and it remained motionless directly ahead of us, how far I cannot say, but

it must have been quite a few miles.

Note their statements about distance and I have seen burner plumes from a distance while airborne and they are completely different than anything else.

Cheers Merc

Thanks mate, I missed that line. The way they describe the maneuvers, it sounded like they would have been closer. Do you feel it is possible they embellished a little?

That is my first thought but why have they not been seen since? WWII saw piston engines fly at altitudes never dreamed of before but post war they were replaced by turboprops and turbojets fairly quickly so maybe something in that mix caused the EM disturbance that a jet engine does not? A short time span in history where high altitude, piston driven engines generated some weird effect? Both sides reported it as a new weapon so no secret Nazi saucer thingie.

I guess some research into the early "50s when B-29s were still flying at altitude would be worthwhile. Did they see these balls of light while cruising at altitude? Honestly, I am not tuned in enough to understand it but if aircraft were causing this anomaly in the early 40's then they should still be causing it now and in a couple thousand hours of flight time I never saw a "foo fighter".

I think they are still seen, I reckon the JAL1628 case is the same phenomena. There are many of the case files Sky has presented on B52's that describe the same behaviour, Sky seems to see that as confirmation of spaceships, but I see it as confirmation of Natural Phenomena based on local conditions.

[skyeagle409]

I think they are still seen, I reckon the JAL1628 case is the same phenomena.

Nope. The UFOs of the JAL 1628 incident did not exhibit the same kind of radar returns as natural phenomena, which was also confirmed by the co-pilot of JAL 1628.

[Merc14]

Cheers Merc

Thanks mate, I missed that line. The way they describe the maneuvers, it sounded like they would have been closer. Do you feel it is possible they embellished a little?

The second half seems to be embellished IMHO as I'll detail below.

I find it striking that the co-pilots first thought was a fighter jet. If we go by the old saw that usually your first answer is the right one and then throw in the new tech of afterburners, which they had probably never seen before, then this report makes sense, at least in the first half of it. The second half of the report, when the object is maneuvering, seems confused and possibly embellished because it disagrees with itself in several spots. They describe, in great detail, an object maneuvering a great distance from them and never changing its separation from them but how do they know all these details when it is nighttime and all they can see is a light source? What if we have two aircraft up there maneuvering against each other and coming in and out of burner? That would explain everything they were seeing and it is very feasible since this is a night sighting.

There are a lot of questions I'd like to ask these two guys but the report itself, at least in the second half, seems confused and full of fill-in-the-blanks memories. People need to remember that having a set of wings on your chest doesn't inoculate against confused memories and embellishment (especially for a fighter guy ).

Lastly, the lack of radar data is sad and possibly telling because military controllers would surely have known if they had maneuvering aircraft in the area yet NICAP never goes and asks the authorities. Why? This would be seemingly easy to do but they left it out and never pursued it. Seesm suspicious, especially since the aircrew was asking center to contact military radar.

I think they are still seen, I reckon the JAL1628 case is the same phenomena. There are many of the case files Sky has presented on B52's that describe the same behavior, Sky seems to see that as confirmation of spaceships, but I see it as confirmation of Natural Phenomena based on local conditions.

Possibly but once again I fall back on my experience and that of my air wing buds who have never bellied up to the bar with a story about a strange light following them. I remember one time back in the day the skipper left me home during a det. to sort out some personal issues (I cancelled a wedding) and break in a couple of new pilots we had coming aboard and one day we got the call to burn 5 or 6 bags of gas to end the fiscal quarter (back in those days, if you didn't use all your allotted gas in one quarter you wouldn't get it in the next quarter).

We could do anything we wanted so we went out a couple of hundred miles over the Atlantic, got below the cloud layer, which was at 800-1,000 feet and then went full blower back to the beach hitting mach 1.1 or so (supersonic speed) which generated all these weird tendrils of moisture which wrapped themselves around the jet and trailed behind us. Wild stuff and very fun but no strange lights. Wouldn't something like that generate a florescence of some kind if the phenomena existed?

I don't know but I've flown at night far more than I wanted and never saw any of this stuff. I've seen a lot of strange things but no foo fighters and no flying saucers even though I wish I had.

[DONTEATUS]

Like Carl Sagan quoted, " Billion`s & Billion`s " anything is possible , anything !

[Hawken]

Like Carl Sagan quoted, " Billion`s & Billion`s " anything is possible , anything !

I totally agree Donny. No matter how bizarre it seems.

[skyeagle409]

Like Carl Sagan quoted, " Billion`s & Billion`s " anything is possible , anything !

I have said from time to time that the universe could be full of alien civilizations that are thousands or even millions of years more advanced than mankind and many could be refugees as well. Eventually, if mankind is still around, mankind is going to leave planet Earth or perish because the Sun will not last forever and it is not inconceivable that advanced civilizations may have had to leave their home planets for the same reason or face extinction.

Look how far mankind has come over the past 100 years, and just think how technologically advanced mankind will be in a thousand, or even a million years from now.

Capital Airlines were involved in another UFO sighting.

July 20: 0100 EDT.

Herndon, Va. Capital Airlines flight from National Airport called by control tower to check on unidentified radar targets saw three objects, and three more between there and Martinsburg, W. Va. "like falling stars without tails [which] moved rapidly up, down, and horizontally. Also hovered." Chief CAA air traffic controller Harry Barnes later said in a newspaper interview: "His [the pilot's] subsequent description of the movement of the objects coincided with the position of our pips [radar targets] at all times while in our range." (

UFOE

, p. 159;

AFOSI

;

CAA

evaluation report on radar-UFO sightings.

http://www.project1947.com/fig/1952d.htm

[skyeagle409]

I totally agree Donny. No matter how bizarre it seems.

There were people who once scoffed at the idea of an airplane.

[mcrom901]

Nope, not even plasma.

why?

[skyeagle409]

why?

Natural occurring plasma do not play cat-and-mouse games that UFOs are known to do and once again, what the conditions needed for plasma to form?

[mcrom901]

Natural occurring plasma do not play cat-and-mouse games that UFOs are known to do and once again,

we've been over this...

what the conditions needed for plasma to form?

LINK

[ChrLzs]

I totally agree Donny. No matter how bizarre it seems.

I disagree -it does matter how bizarre.. For example, I think I have almost completely ruled out the Invisible Pink Unicorn theory as it pertains to UFO's. Almost..

And while that mean that aliens, for me, are marginally ahead of the unicorns.... there's really nothing in it, and an absolute 5#!+load of other stuff is way more likely.

[skyeagle409]

we've been over this...

LINK

Okay, so I used your link and found information here.

Plasma

Degree of ionization

For plasma to exist, ionization is necessary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)

Now, you know why the UFOs in the UFO case files in question could never have been explained by plasma.

continue.

Plasma is formed by increasing the temperature of a gas until the electrons within have enough energy to break free of the positive force of attraction exhibited by the nucleus.

http://www.ask.com/science/plasma-formed-987b769a79eb2bbb

18. Plasma UFO Conference

On 27 and 28 October 1967, several physicists expert in either plasma physics or atmospheric electricity met in Boulder, Col., to discuss the UFO problem with staff members of this project. Participants in the plasma UFO conference were:

Marx Brook: New Mexico Inst. of Mining and Technology

Keith A. Brueckner: University of California (San Diego)

Nicholas C. Christofilos: University of California (Livermore)

Ronald T. H. Collis: Stanford Research Institute

Edmond M. Dewan: Air Force Cambridge Research Lab.

Herman W. Hoerlin: Los Alamos Scientific Lab.

Bernd T. Matthias: University of California (San Diego)

Arnold T. Nordsieck: Santa Barbara, California

Marshall N. Rosenbluth: James Forrestal Research Center

John H. Taylor: University of California (San Diego)

UFO Study Members

Various aspects of atmospheric electricity were reviewed, such as ball lightning, and tornado and earthquake luminescence. Unusual UFO reports were presented for discussion. These included a taped report by a B-47 pilot whose plane was paced for a considerable time by a glowing object. Ground radar reported a pacing blip which appeared to be 16 km from the aircraft.

After review the unanimous conclusion was that the object was not a plasma or an electrical luminosity produced by the atmosphere.

http://www.project1947.com/shg/condon/s6chap07.html#s3

Here is the video of that encounter.

RB-47 Video

The RB-47/UFO Encounter

Major Lewis D. Chase

On the evening of September 19, 1957 (or July 17, 1957 – there is some confusion on the date) Major Lewis D. Chase was piloting an RB-47 aircraft on a training mission that started out over the Gulf of Mexico near Louisiana then headed north. As the aircraft approached Jackson, Mississippi, Chase and other crew members saw a lighted object above them at 35,000 ft. They determined pretty quickly that the object was not an aircraft because it was emitting an intense electromagnetic signature on their equipment; similar in intensity to a ground based radar. As they turned to the west toward Texas, the object followed them.

When they contacted Air Defense Command ground control (GCI) at Ft. Worth, they confirmed that they had radar contact with both the object and his aircraft. As the RB-47 continued north toward Kansas, the object appeared at the 11 o’clock position of the aircraft. Suddenly the object started closing on them. As it approached it accelerated at high speed and passed directly in front of the RB-47. The object then stopped and hovered in mid-air about ten miles from the aircraft’s low 2 o’clock position.

As the RB-47 passed over the stationary object, Chase watched it blink out. The object simply disappeared! The object later re-appeared in another position. These maneuvers continued for over 2 hours.Chase wrote a detailed report of the incident at the request of AFOSI (Air Force Office of Special Investigations), whose representatives met him and his crew on arrival at Forbes AFB, Kansas. Chase told Craig that there was a voice recording of his communications with his crew during the incident which was confiscated by AFOSI.

http://webcache.goog...n&ct=clnk&gl=us

I might add that the pilot of that RB-47, Lewis D. Chase. was also the Air Force officer who wrote that report in regard to the Malmstrom AFB UFO incident that mentioned a landing.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS 341ST COMBAT SUPPORT GROUP (SAC)

MALMSTROM AIR FORCE BASE, MT 590402

REPLY TO

ATTN OF: BO 3 July 1967

SUBJECT: UFO Observations, Malmstrom AFB Area

to: Colonel James C. Manatt (lettered TDET/UFO)

HQ Foreign Technology Division (AFSC)

Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433

1. Reference TDET/UFO letter dated 30 June 1967 on above subject.

2. This office has no knowledge of equipment malfunctions and abnormalities in equipment during the period of reported UFO sightings. No validity can be established to the statement that a classified government experiment was in progress or that military and civilian personnel were requested not to discuss what they had seen.

3. A written report on the events that transpired during the alleged UFO reported landing on 24 March 1967, fully documents all findings by the investigating officer. A copy of this report was forwarded to your office on 3 April 1967.

4. If we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to write.

FOR THE COMMANDER

LEWIS D. CHASE, Lt Colonel, USAF

Chief, Operations Division

http://www.nicap.org/reports/670324belt_report2.htm

One of the reasons why I became familiar with UFOs interfering with out Minuteman missiles is because my base, Hill AFB, UT., was the depot for the Air Force's Minuteman missiles.